11/05/2007

MR. RUSSERT: And also with gay marriage, according to the Associated Press: “Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice.” So if a state said, “We want to have gay marriages in our state,” you would be OK with that?

MR. THOMPSON:Yes. This, this, this—the—marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that that was contested until recently, and we’ve had a couple judges in a couple states decide to turn all that on its head. So we’ve, we’ve had, again, a judge-created problem. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge-created problem. But at the end of—and, and say judges can’t do that. But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that’s what they want to do, yes, they should have, they, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.

Consequently, after seeing this on the TV-vision, this writer and his would-be husband shared the following:

MR. HOOPER: Ugh, can you believe this dude? He's making it sound like marriage equality is a concept that only started scratching gay brains around 2004. And he has the nerve to call it a "problem"? So basically the idea that you and I should have our monogamous coupling of many years recognized in the same way as our hetero siblings is something that potential president Thompson considers to be a brainteaser at best, and a nightmarish dilemma at worst. Uncool.

MR. SHULMAN: So wait, what's his position?

MR. HOOPER: Well, baby, considering the fact that he tends to deliver his talking points as if its still Halloween and he's still going as a annoyed zombie who would rather be in bed than on national television, I can understand how his message could've been lost on you. But since this writer hails from Thompson's home state and has been listening to his public mumblings for years, let me try and translate. Basically he's saying that his measure would somehow prevent judges from looking at the constitution and finding that marriage equality is a concept that already should be taking place in this country. He would rob the courts of the their power to correct the injustice that has long plagued society. You, know -- that injustice that keeps us from filing a joint tax return every year? The kind that has forced us to jump through alternate hoops to ensure that we'd be able to make each other's medical decisions? The bias that has prevented us from registering for the Kitchen Aid mixer? Yea, Fred would keep the courts, the place where civil rights injustices have historically been healed, from weighing in.

MR. SHULMAN: But what about the legislature and governor?

MR. HOOPER: Oh, yea, because he's just SOOOOOOO compassionate, he will still allow the lawmakers and governors to pass through marriage equality. So like what's happening in New York, where the governor and Assembly are fully on board, or in California, where the legislature has passed marriage equality but Schwarzenegger has held out -- those would still be free to move forward under Thompson's proposed misstep. But of course he has to throw in that he thinks it would be "a very bad idea." So don't you dare think that he considers our loving, tax-paying existences to be deserving of parity. It's just that rather than have his potential legacy placed on prominent display in the heart of the MUSEUM OF CIVIL RIGHTS BUMBLEF**KS , he instead wants his exhibit in the "STILL BAD, BUT NOT QUITE BUSH" wing of the building.

MR. SHULMAN: Got it. So basically he still wants to stand in the way of what is right and fair, but mainly it's the judges he's gunning for.

MR. HOOPER: Exactly. He fostering the right-wing idea that judges are societal assassins hellbent on destroying the world via their reasoned consideration of the governing documents and their rational reconciliation of said documents with realities of the world and its inhabitants. And he's being extra careful to refer to our relationships as societal land mines, so as to appease those who detest the "radical" idea that we gays are decent humans seeking peace, fairness, and unity (who might otherwise view him too weak, since he's not supporting the full Federal Marriage Amendment). And he's promoting the idea that gay marriage is just a newfangled idea that we gays are using to promote some sort of agenda, rather than a long-held concept that we have always wanted, but which situational realties have always prevented us from even suggesting.

So don't be fooled. In terms of the kind of world we want to see, he's really no better than Huckabee or Romney. Between unjust stagnation and righteous progress stands an out-of-step, unqualified, unpresidential, former actor by the name of Fred Thompson. And If only to payback to those who have forced us to live through seven years of world reputation-ruining, war-inducing, FEMA-bumbling, equality-stifling, "values"-hijacking, polarizing hell, we must stop this and every clothes-less emperor from moving into 1600 Pennsylvania.